Urmil vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others

Sanjiv Khanna, J.—Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the tribunal has erred in dismissing the O.A. No. 1999/2010 filed by the Petitioner herein by their order dated 9th August, 2011, on the ground of delay and laches. He submits that the Petitioner had applied for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide application dated 27th March, 2009 and after the information was made available on 15th June, 2010, she had filed the original application before the tribunal on 21st June, 2010. It is further submitted that the tribunal had decided the question what is meant by the term ''elective subject'' vide their decision dated 15th September, 2008 in O.A. No. 1054/2008 and, therefore, there was no delay and the Petitioner had approached the tribunal within a reasonable period.

the Petitioner had appeared for selection as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Hindi as an OBC candidate. She qualified in the Part-I examination and appeared in the Part-II examination on 2nd September, 2007, but she was not successful in the results declared on 29th March, 2008.

The selected candidates have already been appointed and are working for last three years. As noticed above, the original application challenging non-selection was filed on 21st June, 2010, nearly 27 months after the results were declared. The reason for non-selection was the stand of the Respondents that Hindi was not one of the elective subject of the Petitioner at the graduation stage. This stand of the Respondent was not fully accepted by the tribunal in O.A. No. 1054/2008 filed by a third party, which was decided on 15th September, 2008. It was held that if a candidate has passed a subject carrying 100 marks in each year of the three year graduation course, she/he can be regarded as having qualified/passed the elective subject. But, the Petitioner did not move or file any application even after decision dated 15th September, 2008.

the Petitioner has submitted that her marks and reason for non-selection was informed to her on 15th June, 2010 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and immediately thereafter she approached the tribunal. We do not think that the application filed by the Petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 27th March, 2009 can give or furnish a fresh cause of action to the Petitioner. It may be noticed here that the application under Right to Information Act, 2005 was filed nearly one year after the results were declared and the Act was enforced in 2005. That apart, it is noticed that the Petitioner did not make the persons selected and appointed as TGT and who have been working for last three years, as parties to the OA.

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.